ForumsWEPRInvoking the right to remain silent.

6 1858
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

So it seems we now have to verbally invoke this right to remain silent after being read the Miranda rights rather then it just being implied that we have it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/01/high-court-suspects-must-directly-invoke-right-to-remain-silent/?fbid=wYic751XmVh

I think I agree with one of the comments made.

It shouldn't require a positive act to assert that right. To the contrary, it should take a positive act to waive it.
  • 6 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I agree, it should be a passive right rather than a inserted one. It does make it pointless, as claiming the right to remain silent would not only make you look guilty but would require speaking, the opposite of silence.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

Um...what? I thought they read you those rights therefore giving you those rights? Is this more technicality bs?

thepossum
offline
thepossum
3,035 posts
Nomad

Does anybody else find it ironic that you have to speak to enact your right to remain silent?

Nielix1324
offline
Nielix1324
14 posts
Nomad

you dont really have to verbally enable it considering if you say nothing at all they cant really do anything about that. if u r lucky they wont read you ur miranda rights and it wont matter

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Does anybody else find it ironic that you have to speak to enact your right to remain silent?


Very much so.

you dont really have to verbally enable it considering if you say nothing at all they cant really do anything about that. if u r lucky they wont read you ur miranda rights and it wont matter


Good question. Cops however will use all sorts of tactics to try and get you to talk.
goumas13
offline
goumas13
4,752 posts
Grand Duke

I don't know if this is good. Suspects will be often presumed to have waived their right to remain silent, even though they did not express such desire.

Showing 1-6 of 6